Tony Trupp

How did the Ancient Egyptians carve and move their megalithic obelisks? Here’s a thread with some clues showing how they might have done it…

@JTritell @Rory_Johnston The get the straight opened up again.

@Rory_Johnston So the USA gets absolutely nothing of value. Im sure this is the super legit agreement too. And this was not sent to Bloomberg by any Iranians with any self-serving motivations. And the Iranians also get a bye to World Cup finals.

Below is the text of the 14-point draft memorandum, as seen by Bloomberg News. 1. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States, together with their allies in the current war, declare upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and undertake that from now on they will not launch any hostile action against each other, and will refrain from the threat or use of force against each other. The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article and the remaining Articles. 2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs. 3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States undertake to negotiate and reach a final agreement within a maximum period of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent. 4. Immediately upon the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, the United States Lift the naval blockade and prevent any interference or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and restore traffic within a maximum of 30 days to its full capacity; the traffic of ships shall be proportional to the pre-war volume of traffic on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States also undertakes to withdraw its forces from the surrounding areas within 30 days after the final agreement. 5. Upon signing this Memorandum of Understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will immediately take steps to ensure that the movement of merchant ships from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of ​​Oman and vice versa is resumed within 30 days to the pre-war volume, taking into account the need for the removal of technical obstacles and the neutralization of mines by Iran. 6. The United States undertakes, together with its regional partners, to create a comprehensive plan agreed upon by both parties for the rehabilitation and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, While ensuring financing of at least $300 billion. The implementation mechanism of this plan, as part of the final agreement, will be formulated within 60 days. 7. The United States commits to ending, on a schedule to be agreed upon as part of the final agreement, all types of sanctions currently facing the Islamic Republic of Iran, including resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary. 8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States have agreed that the fate of enriched material and the fate of all other mutually agreed nuclear-related issues, including Iran’s nuclear needs, will be adequately addressed in a final agreement; the final agreement will confirm the provisions of this Article. 9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that, pending a final agreement, they will maintain the status quo: Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the United States will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region. 10. The United States undertakes that immediately after the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and until the date of the lifting of sanctions, the United States Treasury Department will issue waivers for exports of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like. 11. The United States undertakes that, in light of the progress of negotiations towards a final agreement, frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran will be released and made fully available. These funds, whether held in the master account or transferred, will be used for any final beneficiary payment determined by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran and will be fully available for use. The United States undertakes to issue all necessary permits and licenses on this basis. 12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States agree that an implementation mechanism will be established to oversee the successful implementation of and future commitment to the Final Agreement. 13. Following the signing of this Memorandum of Understanding, and upon receipt of assurances regarding the commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this Memorandum of Understanding, and the continued implementation of these steps, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States will enter into negotiations for a Final Agreement solely with respect to the remaining Articles. 14. The final agreement will be approved through a binding resolution of the UN Security Council.

@ElohimHandle @BenSwann_ The US already spends more on their military than the next 10 countries combined. So spending more money clearly isn’t the answer. The money they already have needs to be spent more effectively.

@BenSwann_ The US military is going to need more money to modernize and create weapon systems at scale that can counter these threats.

The Iran war has exposed one of the biggest scams with the military-industrial complex. Despite spending trillions of dollars on defense, Iran has been able to damage and neutralize American weapons systems and military infrastructure using weapons that cost only a fraction of the price. The United States maintains the largest military budget in the world, and the Pentagon can't pass a single audit. All this as infrastructure at home deteriorates, and living standards become increasingly difficult for everyday Americans. If smaller militaries can challenge American power with far fewer resources, what are taxpayers really getting in return for this enormous level of spending? I discuss this and more with @JonesDanny.

@WarrenPies @GavinSBaker Isn’t it just mostly due to international strategic inventory drawdowns offsetting the drop in supply? In which case, wouldn’t we still have seen oil prices spike once those inventories ran critically low?

@GavinSBaker Three big reasons: 1) China willingness to reduce imports (ie draw inventories) 2) China ability to flex down demand (EV + mass transit) 3) Dark transits were larger than expected That’s my postmortem

Kinda wild how wrong most energy experts were about the Straits of Hormuz. What were the root causes of the error? China had more reserves than anticipated, US flexed up exports faster and more ships were actually transiting the straits via the Omani route? Genuinely curious.

@greendragonhq Also the money released to them under the obama deal was only their own, which we had frozen in order to encourage them to negotiate.

Amount spent to reach identical deal with Iran: Obama: $1.7 billion Trump: $25 billion + $100 billion in war cost + 13 American lives. 👏WE👏ARE👏NOT👏THE👏SAME👏

@neoavatara Obama’s deal wasn’t really bad in hindsight. They were abiding by the deal, as confirmed by UN inspectors. The money released to the Iranians was their own that we had frozen as leverage to force them to negotiate. And they accomplished that without an unnecessary war.

All of this is so, so much worse than the Obama JCPOA nuke deal. Why? Obama made a horrible, terrible secret deal, but didn't spend months ruining our economy and using up our military stores. Trump did.

@DecodingFoxNews Is congress really going to approve that? Are you sure it’s not being mostly funded by other gulf countries?

I want to point out again that in the case of Obama the money was Iran’s that had been held in an interest bearing account for decades. GHW Bush also gave them back some of their money before Obama did. Trump’s $300 billion will be paid by U.S. taxpayers.

@DontcaIlmewave @realDonaldTrump No longer true, because Iran did win the war.

@realDonaldTrump Unfortunately true. The world is laughing at us now

Iran never won a war, but never lost a negotiation!

@SpencerHakimian Should be much lower still.

NEW: Trump’s approval rating hits 28%. The lowest for any president in U.S. history.

@drleeclare @JosephAPWilson1 I just block anyone that behaves like that on here. It’s juvenile. Dan got blocked a long time ago.

Sorry to spoil everyone else’s day/evening but verbal abuse and slander need to be called out.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock x.com/tonytrupp/stat…

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock I’m sick of this. Maybe we disagree about the interpretation of that exchange, but that’s not the same thing as lying when there have been tons of other people who also see that as hancock admitting he has zero evidence. Blocking.

Jonathan Black, author of The Secret History of the Universe, has written a thought-provoking new article for my website exploring 5 phrases that reveal intellectual dishonesty in action, phrases that should raise alarm bells in a debate. Black draws on Hume and the philosophy of science to show why these stock sceptical responses are often either ignorant of how science actually works or deliberately misleading. grahamhancock.com/blackj5/

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock And asking the youtube AI, across the entire video, it also confirms that hancock doesn’t have any direct, dated archeological evidence.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock Here’s someone else also recognizing that hancock admitted there that he has nothing.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock You really think there would be this massive global spanning civilization that never traveled inland beyond where the coasts are now covered with water? And they never traded goods inland? That argument is so weak it’s laughable.

It isn't. It's really telling that you didn't even look it up. They were talking about evidence for a seafaring civilisation, in particular about shipwrecks from >10kya. Graham said there is no evidence found **in what archaeologists have studied so far** which is shallow waters that would have been dry land during the ice age. The fact that you at no point considered that I might be right and you might be wrong and that it would be a good idea to double check, just in case, proves that you are intellectually bankrupt, that you are arguing in bad faith, and that I am right: issue a hypothesis in archaeology and the gate keepers won't even give you the benefit of the doubt. Dude, get real.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock youtu.be/RwTkDkSbO-4?is…

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock It’s exactly what he said. After 30 years of pushing fiction about Atlantis he still can provide zero real evidence that it existed. All he does is point to natural geologic features and monuments from younger cultures while pretending like they’re from his lost civilization.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock Nope. For example, he even publicly conceded that there was no evidence to support his claims of an advanced lost civilization. And many of sites that he suggests were from his lost ice age civilization do have solid dating proving that they are from more recent cultures.

1. Plenty of data to support everything he's saying. 2. No one has been able to bring up any contradicting evidence so far. The fact that you make it about how much evidence there is in support of a hypothesis proves me completely correct. You do not think of hypotheses like anyone from any other field. QED.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock The problem with what hancock tends to present as hypotheses is that 1) it isn’t well supporter by data, and 2) it’s also often directly contradicted by the evidence. That’s why he gets ridiculed so much. It’s pseudoscientific.

A good hypothesis should be an extension from the data, not a tentative guess at what the data represents. Look at the theory of relatively. Completely out there, and took decades for evidence to come through. There is no equivalent in archaeology. There's a difference between contesting a hypothesis and calling the author a white supremacists while trying to get him deplatformed and banned from every site.

@Cristi_Neagu @Graham__Hancock A good hypothesis should fit the data! And hypotheses by their very nature often tend to be contested. That’s a heathy sign of disagreement/debate between researchers, to cross examine those ideas. That’s what we should want to see.

@TonyTrupp @Graham__Hancock For starters, those are not like hypotheses in other fields. They're explanations that fit the data. They're not extensions from the data out into the unknown. Secondly, even those are heavily contested.